Sri Shivanadakumar J Vs Smt Shamala S K

SMT NAGAMANI SHANKAR D/O LATE KUMUDAVATHI S AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO. 44, 4^TH CROSS, KAMAKYA LAYOUT (BEHIND KAMAKYA THEATRE) BSK 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶30

SRI SATISHKUMAR S S/O LATE KUMUDAVATHI S,

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AGED ABOUT 64 YEASR, NO.2354, 24^TH MAIN ROAD, HSR LAYOUT 1^ST SECTOR, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶34

SMT RAJINI VS D/O LATE SMT NAGAVALLI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.1114, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, NEW GURAPPANA PALYA, BTM 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶35

SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY V S S/O LATE SMT NAGAVALLI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.1113/L, 1^ST G MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, 2^ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶36

SMT SUNANDHA V S D/O LATE SMT NAGAVALLI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.1114, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, NEW GURAPPANA PALYA, BTM 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶37

SRI. MAHESH V.S, S/O LATE. SMT. NAGAVALLI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.1114, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, NEW GURAPPANA PALYA, BTM 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

SMT. NANDINI V.S, D/O LATE. SMT. NAGAVALLI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.1114, 8^TH MAIN ROAD NEW GURAPPANA PALYA, BTM 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶41

SMT. PANKAJA V. RAO, D/O LATE. S. SHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS NO.101, B BLOCK, OAKRIDGE APARTMENTS, JP NAGAR 2^ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶42

DR. RUPA SEETHARAMAIAH, D/O LATE. SEETHARAMAIAH S, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 11550, SW 95^TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA - 33176 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

¶43

SMT. RASHMI SEETHARAMAIAH D/O LATE. SEETHARAMAIAH S, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SHIVAKRUPA, LR NO.29, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096.

¶44

POORNIMA SEETHARAMAIAH D/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH S AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 6221 CARMICHAEL STREET,

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

FORT COLLINE, COLORADO-80528. USTED STATES OF AMERICA.

¶48

DR. SHIVAKUMAR SEETHARAMAIAH S/O LATE. SEETHARAMAIAH S, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.7/1, G BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096.

¶49

SMT. KARTHIYAYANI K AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O LATE. KAMALAKARA S, NO.51 'PADMAJE' 3B CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, SATHYANARAYANA LAYOUT, MAHALAXMIPURAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 086.

¶50

SMT. BARATHI D/O LATE. SMT. SHAILAJA S, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS KUMAR KRUPA, NEXT TO VISHNUPAD TEMPLE, DEV GHAT, GAYA BIHAR - 823 001.

¶51

MR. BANU KUMAR SHASTRI S/O LATE. SHAILAJA S, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KUMARA KRUPA NEXT TO VISHNUPAD TEMPLE, DEV GHAT, GAYA BIHAR - 823 001.

¶52

MR. MANJUKUMAR J, S/O LATE. JAYACHANDRA SHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

R/AT NO.10/1, D.NO.2^ND STREET, ULSOOR,

¶56

BENGALURU - 560 008.

¶57

M/S UTKRUSTA PROPERTIES 555/10, AISHWARYA NILAYA, 4^TH FLOOR, FURTHER EXTENSION OF IX BLOCK, SIR M. VISHWESHWARAYA LAYOUT, NEAR MP SPORTS CLUB,

¶58

BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶59

…RESPONDENTS

¶60

(BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1, R6, R8, R9, R10 AND R11;

¶61

SRI. INDRA DHANUSH M A.,ADVOCATE FOR R21;

¶62

NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPESENTED;

¶63

NOTICE TO R2, R3, R4, R7, R13 TO R19 ARE D/W V/O DTD: 15/12/25;

¶64

NOTICE TO R20 D/W V/O DTD:02/04/26;

¶65

R12- DEAD)

¶66

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 22.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 68/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE, REJECTING THE IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶67

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶68

7 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶72

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶73

The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the order dated 22.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.68/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Challakere (for short 'the trial Court'). By the impugned order, the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be rejected.

¶74

Brief facts :

¶75

The plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition and separate possession claiming their 1/9^th share in the suit schedule properties contending that the properties are joint family properties of the propositus Sri. S.Shamaiah. It is their case that the name of eldest son Sri. S Prabakar, was entered in the revenue records only as a Manager and not as an absolute owner. It is further contended that the said Sri. S Prabakar executed a Will dated 15.12.2022 in

¶76

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

favour of defendant No.1, who in turn executed a sale deed dated 28.11.2022 in favour of defendant No.21. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1 seeking injunction restraining alienation. Though an ex-parte order of injunction was granted, the trial Court upon contest rejected the application leading to the present appeal.

¶79

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants.

¶80

Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the original propositus - Sri. S.Shamaiah. The entry of name of the elder son, Sri. S.Prabhakar in the revenue records does not confer title. Sri. S.Prabhakar had no exclusive right to execute a Will and consequently, the sale in favour of defendant No.21 is illegal. It is submitted that the trial Court has erred by deciding title

¶81

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

issue at interlocutory stage, relying heavily on Palu Patti and revenue entries. It is submitted that holding absence of a prima facie case is erroneous.

¶84

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 sought to justify the impugned order and submits that the revenue entries stood in the name of Sri. S Prabakar since long and was never challenged. A family arrangement (Palu Patti) exists excluding suit properties. Plaintiffs have filed selective litigation and defendant No.21 is a bonafide purchaser who has invested substantially and converted the property.

¶85

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.21 contends that he is a bonafide purchaser for a valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 28.11.2022 executed by defendant No.1. It is submitted that the revenue entries stood in the name of Sri. S Prabakar for several decades and the said entries were never challenged by the propositus or by the predecessor

¶86

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

of the plaintiffs thereby conferring legitimacy to his title and subsequent transaction. It is further contended that family arrangement (Palu Patti) though unregistered has not been acted upon by the parties and the suit schedule property were consciously excluded therein indicating that

¶89

they were not treated as joint family properties. It is submitted that after purchasing the property, respondent No.21 has invested substantial amount, converted the land into residential sites and altered the nature of the property. The present suit has been filed belatedly only to obstruct his lawful possession of the property. That the plaintiffs have failed to establish prima-facie and balance of convenience lies in favour of respondent No.21 and the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for temporary injunction and the same does not warrant interference.

¶90

This Court has carefully considered the

¶91

contentions and perused the material placed on record.

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

The points that arises for consideration are as under:

¶96

(i) Whether the order rejecting the application for temporary injunction warrants interference?

¶97

(ii) At the outset, it is well settled that

¶98

the Appellate Court can interfere with the Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC only if the discretion is exercised by the trial Court is perverse, contrary and arbitrary to the settled principles.

¶99

(iii) The trial Court while adjudicate the interlocutory application was virtually interfered with the merits of the disputes and rendered the findings touching upon the nature and character of the suit schedule property.

¶100

The trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has held at paragraph No.11 as under:

¶101

12 -

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

" 11. Moving on to the disputed facts, the plaintiffs contend that as Prabhakar was the eldest son of the family, the revenue entries were got mutated in his name. He had no exclusive right over the same. In spite of the same he had bequeathed the same in favour of the defendant No.1to defeat the legitimate share of the plaintiffs and the other defendants. The defendant No.1 claim that the revenue entries were got mutated in the name of the Prabhakar on 9-11-1966. This fact is substantiated from the documents produced by the plaintiffs. The revenue records in respect of the suit schedule properties stood in the name of the said Prabhakar since long time. Admittedly Shamaiah died on 18-031985. Twenty years prior to the death of Shamaiah, the revenue entries were got mutated into the name of Prabhakar. Shamaiah had not questioned the same, during his lifetime. Neither of the fathers of the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 had questioned the same during their lifetime. Further the defendant No.1 had placed on record a document said to be family partition deed dated 15-03-1996. The said document is an unregistered partition deed reduced into writing i.e. palu patti. The fathers of the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 by names Jayachandra and Radha Mohan are the signatories to the said document. The pleadings of the plaintiffs are silent in this regard. In the said document, the parties have got divided their joint

¶105

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

family properties. In the said document, the suit schedule properties are not been included. This fact signifies that the suit schedule properties were not construed to be joint family properties. The said inference could be drawn from the document. As aforesaid the documents bears the signature of the Jayachandra and Radha Mohan. Neither Jayachandra nor Radha Mohan had questioned this fact during their lifetime. Now after their death, their respective sons are challenging the same. The said document prima facie goes to show that the suit schedule properties were not construed to be joint family properties. That apart the suit is instituted only in respect of the schedule properties. The aforesaid palu patti go to show that the family of the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos.1 to 20 had owned many other properties. The same has not been included in the suit. The suit is instituted only in respect of two properties, the revenue records in respect of which stood in the names of Prabhakar. The plaintiffs are pursuing selective litigation. Thus this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case in their favour. The balance of convenience also does not lie in their favour. If the application is disallowed, no legal injury or greater hardship will be caused to plaintiffs. No doubt the disallowing of the application may result in multiplicity of the proceedings. However the same by

¶108

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

itself is no ground to allow the application, when the plaintiffs have failed to show existence of prima facie case in their favour. As such this court is constrained to answer point No.1 in the negative. "

¶111

The reliance placed by the trail Court on long standing revenue entries standing in the name of Sri S. Prabhakar to infer exclusive title, is prima-facie unsustainable, inasmuch as it is well settled that the revenue entries by themselves would not confer title.

¶112

Likewise, the inference drawn from the alleged Palu Patti, which is an unregistered document, to conclude that the suit schedule properties are not joint family properties is a matter that requires detailed evidence and adjudication during trial.

¶113

The question as to whether S. Prabhakar had absolute right over the suit schedule property or merely managing the same as the elder member of the family, and whether the alleged Will and subsequent sale deed

¶114

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

confer valid title are also serious triable issues which

¶117

cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.

¶118

In the considered opinion of this Court, the trail court has just prejudged the issues and declined relief on the ground which pertains to final adjudication. Thereby, failing to properly examine the prima-facie case.

¶119

Insofar as the aspect of balance of convenience is concerned, it is noted that the suit is one for partition and separate possession, wherein the rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated. If during the pendency of the suit the suit property is permitted to be alienated or third party interest are created, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience lies in maintaining status-quo and the plaintiffs have made out a case warranting interference. Accordingly, the points framed for consideration are answered and this Court pass the following:

¶120

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:18063 MFA No. 7303 of 2025

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

ORDER

¶123

i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is disposed of .

¶124

ii) The order dated 22.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.68/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Challakere, is hereby set aside . Consequently, I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is allowed .

¶125

iii) The respondents/defendants are restrained from alienating or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

¶126

iv) It is made clear that the observation made in this order are only for the purpose of consideration of the interlocutory application and the trial Court shall decide

¶127